Case Law Details
Tyre India Spare India Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The recent judgment by the Kerala High Court in the case of Tyre India Spare India vs State Tax Officer dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner sought various reliefs, challenging the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the applicability of Section 16(4) in certain situations. This analysis delves into the key aspects of the case and the court’s decision.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner raised concerns regarding the legality, arbitrariness, and constitutionality of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and Kerala State GST Act. The contention was that this section denies ITC if not claimed within the due date of filing the return for the month of September following the end of the financial year or furnishing the annual return, whichever is earlier.
The petitioner also argued that the due dates mentioned in Section 16(4) should be automatically extended based on specific notifications, and the impugned assessment order should be set aside. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner informed the court about the extended time limit for filing the appeal against the assessment order, which prompted a withdrawal of the writ petition.
The court, considering the petitioner’s submission, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with the liberty to appeal against the assessment order under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act by the extended deadline of 31.01.2024.
Conclusion: The Tyre India Spare India vs State Tax Officer case underscores the significance of understanding statutory timelines and utilizing the available remedies. While the petitioner withdrew the writ petition, the judgment emphasizes the option to appeal within the extended time limit. This analysis provides insights into the court’s decision, offering clarity on the implications of Section 16(4) of the GST Act in the context of the petitioner’s contentions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs;
(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing to set aside Ext. P1 order as Ext. P-1 Order was issued without considering the essence of Notification 19/2021 -Central Tax dated 01.06.2021 and Notification No. 33/2021 – Central Tax dated 29.08.2021.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders declaring that Section 16(4) shall not be applicable to cases in which return was belatedly filed due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders declaring Section 16(4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 16(4) of Kerala State GST Act to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and invalid to the extent it seeks to deny Input Tax Credit if it is not taken within the due date of furnishing of the return for the month of September following the end of the financial year to which any invoice or debit note pertains or furnishing of annual return, whichever is earlier;
(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders declaring the due dates mentioned in Section 16(4) of CGST Act and Section 16(4) of Kerala GST Act to have been automatically extended for the time periods and category of assessees mentioned in Notification 19/2021 -Central Tax dated 01.06.2021 and Notification No. 33/2021 – Central Tax dated 29.08.2021., to such date to which the due date for filing GSTR – 3B was extended by the aforementioned Notifications;
(v) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders declaring P-1 Order to be void ab initio as they seek to deny eligible ITC of the petitioner based on a misinterpretation of Section 16(4) of the CGST and Kerala State GST Acts;
(vi) Dispense with production of English translation of documents in vernacular languages; and
(vii) Issue any other writ, direction or order found fit and proper by this Honorable Court on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the time limit for filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order in Exhibit P-1 has been extended till 31.01.2024 and the petitioner would like to withdraw the writ petition and take recourse to remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order.
3. Considering the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed above.
Author Bio
